Pope Benedict (the man most responsible for my vocation out of those whom I've never met): called a liberal today. Not sure exactly what liberal means at that point and time in our church. Read the WaPost column which started the discussion here. It seems as if America Magazine's blog makes the more poignant and meaningful point: Conservative? Liberal? Or just "revolutionary"?Revolutionary? Bingo. Maureen Dowd's drivel over the weekend not withstanding.

Bottles of ink have already been spilled regarding the recent decision upon the creation of personal ordinariates to faciliate Anglicans "poping." Not necessarily surprising for me, as unity among Catholics (and churches in close doctrinal relation) has been a key focus of Benedict's pontificate.

To understand the movements made by Benedict towards Anglicans, Traditionalist Schismatics and the Eastern Orthodox churches one must read what he wrote as a priest and bishop in Germany in the theological ferment immeadiately following the Second Vatican Council. Joseph Ratzinger's term as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) does not by any means give keen clues into the man's theology. Read Introduction to Christianity or What It Meants to be a Christian and you'll receive a better idea. The basic premise of Benedict, if I may be so bold, is this: unity among Christians is better than disunity.

Benedict's work as a student focused on Augustine, who, among other things, always looked upon unity within the church as better than disunity. In other words, if Benny can do something to bring more sheep into the fold, he's going to pull the trigger.